HC Deb 24 July 1850 vol 113 cc206-7

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate, on Question [12th June].

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

stated the object of the clause, which was to prevent the disfranchisement by this Bill of occupiers who were now entitled to vote at municipal elections.

On Motion that the Clause be read a Second Time,

MR. STANFORD

said, that the clause gave the franchise to persons who paid neither rent nor rates, which was a departure from the principle of the Reform Bill.

SIR H. WILLOUGHBY

said, that by this clause the owner was to pay the rate, and the occupier was to vote, which was tantamount to the introduction of the scotand-lot system.

SIR G. GREY

said, that the Bill, as it was introduced, would cause a considerable diminution of the number of persons entitled to vote at municipal elections; and the present clause was drawn up with the consent of the Committee to prevent that result.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the real question was, whether they were to give the power of voting to parties who did not choose to put themselves to the trouble of claiming it. He did not think it wise for such a purpose that they should depart from the sound principle of requiring payment of the rate as a test of the fitness of the voter.

SIR J. GRAHAM

said, with respect to the Parliamentary franchise, there was no difficulty in allowing persons to compound for the rate, because they had the value of the tenement, which must be of the value of 10l., as a test. But with regard to the municipal franchise, there was no such test with regard to the value of the tenement. As at present advised, therefore, he was disposed to vote against the clause.

MR. BAINES

said, that there were difficulties on all sides of the question, but he considered that the clause of his hon. and learned Friend was the most free from objection.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 29: Majority 9.

Clause read 2°; 3°.

And it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till To-morrow, without putting the Question.